Hello my band The Collective was denied entry into the archives on the basis that it is not metal. My other bands Spellcraft and The Conspiracy etc all exist here already. So this could actually fall under the side project banner. Regardless the fact remains my latest project is metal. The vocals are Nightwish influenced. There are also distorted metal guitar riffs throughout each song. The major fundamental difference is this band performs an experimental electronic, industrial influenced form of metal. This may not be your cup of tea but that alone does not take from the material being metal.http://www.reverbnation.com/markeriIf you listen to burning or life dream on those two especially I cannot fathom it not being considered metal.

Last edited by Markeri on Wed Mar 20, 2013 5:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Alright, can you please tell me why you keep refusing to approve the band The Evil One? Please tell me so that I can submit more proof before you reject it again. Everyday, you keep approving bands submitted much later and many of those bands don't even have a location, discography or even year of creation. One of the mods told me to have patience and that all bands are checked in due time. I guess that's not the case. I submitted everything needed. Here are the pictures of the PHYSICAL release of the demo:

I don't know how much more possible proof of existence, release and activity one can provide. The band is obviously a metal band and every possible proof is provided, so, will you please finally approve it now?

I don't know how much more possible proof of existence, release and activity one can provide. The band is obviously a metal band and every possible proof is provided, so, will you please finally approve it now?

To put this as bluntly as possible: the "proof" you submitted looks shady. We're kinda waiting on a response back from the band to confirm the existence of a physical pressing.

I am in the band. I don't know how to convince you. It's an underground self release but it is still a physical release. There is almost a hundred copies distributed all over Serbia and sent to some labels. I don't know how to make this proof more credible, do you want pictures of fans holding the cd or what? I'm not trying to be arrogant I just don't understand your extremely strict criteria. Why are you making such a big deal from this? You are approving bands with obviously uncertain existence, I mean, if there is no discography, year of creation or location, what are we talking about? Maybe these bands are your friends I don't know, but it is very very hypocritical and selective. I think that both you and me realize that this band very much exists and is active so will you please stop this injustice and approve it finally after almost a month in the queue?

First of all, please stop comparing your band to others on the site with less information in your draft. For a band to be accepted, they need to convince the moderation that there's been a valid release as well as sufficient evidence that the band was a metal one. This usually takes the form of song samples, but we also accept scanned 'zines and reviews from the early 90s that describe the music in depth, or compare them to other well-known metal bands. If you're pointing fingers at some obscure 90s band with no mention of a discography other than "released a demo tape in the early 90s", then this is one of those cases.

And remember, for a release to be added, it needs a complete tracklist and release date (at least as far as the year of release goes). So if those two criteria remain unknown (as is the case for bands who were added from an old 80s/90s review or whatever), then yes, the page will obviously look scarce.

Now, concerning the act of convincing us... you ARE aware we've had users go to absurd lengths to get their bands onto the site, right? It runs the gamut from bootlegging copies of a demo for photographs, to hosting bogus label sites claiming to distribute the damn releases. I understand if you're a member of the band, the submission criteria is probably going to feel silly/redundant, but bear in mind there's rules for a reason. A user's word alone isn't good enough - especially if the band themselves are trying to submit their own project to the site.

Now, you mentioned fans holding the CDs ... that would actually be acceptable evidence, yeah. If you could do that, or at least link to a post somewhere online where the CDs were announced as available, that'd be swell.

I have to compare it to other bands in order to point out the ridiculous selectivity completely contrary to your own rules. And those were not some obscure bands from the early '90s, those bands I saw were newer bands from recent years. The demo of ours you are referring to was released in 2013, which can be seen in the submission itself, with complete track list. I don't know about those people who went that far to fake their release just to be on this site, but I will certainly not do such a thing because a band can exist even without metal archives. Furthermore, I will not chase people around to take a picture of them with my cd just to prove this to you. I'm not going to humiliate my self for your split hairs. Don't approve this band, I don't care, if it is your wish that your site does not reflect the objective factual state let it be that way. When our release gets more attention maybe some other people from here will submit it because I most certainly will not. I'm sick and tired of your arrogance and rules that even you don't stick to. You did exactly the same thing with my previous bands and all of them turned out to be very active with very valid releases. I'm finished with this site for good.

And those were not some obscure bands from the early '90s, those bands I saw were newer bands from recent years.

Okay, yeah, refer back to the part where I said a release needs a full tracklist before they can be accepted.

Also, the conditions of a submission aren't always visible to non-moderators. In case you haven't noticed, there's a field labelled "Submission notes" that only gets read by the submitter, and the moderators assessing the submission. The "newer bands from recent years" who you believe were accepted without convincing evidence? Yeah, there's probably a bunch of links in the submission notes that confirm physical distribution, or a valid digital download. We know what we're doing, and there's no "ridiculous selectivity". Rules are rules, and the site policies are pretty clearly outlined.

Quote:

You did exactly the same thing with my previous bands and all of them turned out to be very active with very valid releases.

scumfuckg, I can understand your frustration about this. Hell, I don't even really doubt you, but that doesn't change the fact that we still need credible evidence for such releases and as Alhadis already pointed out, we've had far too many cases of people faking their releases (some pretty obvious, some more clever) for us to accept your band solely on the info provided at this point. It's not even that rare for already approved bands to get nuked again because they are discovered to be a deliberate hoax later on. I always see people being incredulous at our perceived strictness, but -although I grant that from a user's perspective it can look silly sometimes- that strictness is very much necessary. For both weeding out fakes and keeping up our standards in general. As such, every band in the queue is subject to our guidelines and the extent to which we expect the evidence within these submissions to be convincing is a more or less constant factor.

Yep, your band has been in the queue for about a week now. (this, by the way, isn't all that unusual for some submissions, not to mention not that long anyway) You were told before to be patient about this and that all bands are dealt with in time. Now you post again and say that isn't the case. I'd disagree there, if only on the basis that there are currently no bands in the queue before The Evil One, i.e. from before March 12th. The queue was also completely empty not too long ago. So thanks for claiming that we're lying about bands getting dealt with, but no thanks. The queue isn't strictly directional, mods tackle it in their own preferred way and often skip bands for a variety of reasons. We try to get older submissions dealt with first when possible, but that's by no means automatically a compelling factor, at least not for more problematic projects that have only been in the queue for a mere week or so. Additionally, nowadays the approval/rejection process often happens through more than one mod. We have a special field invisible to normal users where moderators can share their thoughts on a band. We have in fact been doing that in your case, and there are some unresolved issues and requested input from other staffers that is still upcoming. So even in this respect it's not always as simple as "here's links to the music, here's a photo of a jewel case, now accept damnit!".

We are "making a big deal out of this" because the rules apply to everyone and it's our task as mods to see to it that submissions meet those rules. You posting about it here and acting outraged doesn't change much, the circumstantial evidence may increase, but as it is, there has been no further real proof put forward by you. The evidence as viewed from our end was found insufficient. Your belligerent attitude doesn't help either, to be honest. Look at it from our perspective: First you submit the band with no proof at all, then when asked to provide evidence for a release you resubmit with those pics. Two pics of two closed jewel cases, one with it open and the CD itself obscured by the camera flash (it seems like an unmarked CD-R, though). Combine that with the fact that there's is no mention of a physical release on the band's FB or anywhere else online that I'm aware of. Now, of course there are many bands with this kind of release and we're happy to accept them if proper public distribution is proven (your 100 copies circulating would qualify), but these photos are also rather easy to fake. And to stress that point again, people actually, regularly do this. For all we know, you could be a band member who wants to boost promotion by having his band listed on the Archives and printed out two covers, took a blank CD-R and stuck them into a jewel case. Let's not kid ourselves that all bands are as indifferent to getting added as you claim to be (although not appear to be). It's a sad fact that there is a need to be this cautious/paranoid, but a fact nonetheless, rest assured.

Lastly, it's really tiresome to see people grasping at straws time and again by insisting on using the "but you accepted THOSE bands!" argument when it's clear they don't know what they're talking about. There are many barren entries in the database, true, but they wouldn't have been approved if the existence of their release had been proven in some way. There may have been links to a CD release party, photos, credible reviews mentioning a CD, etc... but no tracklist available. Which results in the lacking discography you mentioned as we don't add albums without complete tracklisting to the discography section but to the notes instead (until more info becomes available). But this doesn't negate the fact that those bands were reviewed and found in accordance with our rules. There is no selectivity, no special treatment for "friends" in the band queue, but thanks again for suggesting it simply because we don't approve your band on good faith.

Bottomline: If you want to convince us, there's a variety of ways. More photos with more copies in them are always welcome. Third-party information, explicitly mentioning the CD, is even better in this case. If as you say there's at least 100 copies out there it shouldn't be unreasonable to ask for more proof. If you aren't willing to make that effort and prefer to fight us instead then that's simply not our problem. It should be rather obvious at this point why there's a need for proper procedure and no amount of attitude on behalf of supposed band members will change that.

Moving on...

Markeri wrote:

Hello my band The Collective was denied entry into the archives on the basis that it is not metal.

The music I heard on ReverbNation seemed to be based in electronica and around the vocal melodies with underlining heavy guitars, but not much metal riffing. I wouldn't call it predominantly metal by our guidelines, just influenced.

Quote:

My other bands Spellcraft and The Conspiracy etc all exist here already. So this could actually fall under the side project banner.

Please re-read the side-project rule. Also, I can't find any band called The Conspiracy featuring you in the database?

Quote:

The vocals are Nightwish influenced.

Vocals are irrelevant. Is every band with a soprano singer metal?

Quote:

There are also distorted metal guitar riffs throughout each song. The major fundamental difference is this band performs an experimental electronic, industrial influenced form of metal. This may not be your cup of tea but that alone does not take from the material being metal

Well, as I said, I'd consider it the other way around, a form of electronic/industrial with metal elements. This does not prevent the band from being metal in your opinion and I can certainly see why you'd consider it that, but the site doesn't.

So far every reason for rejection you have added was based on your personal perception of what you heard when you listened to the music. I as the artist am in the position to know what the music is and what its basis is. For example you state that it sounds like the music was based around electronica and the vocal melodies. As the writer of the music I can tell you with 100% certainty that the guitar was the first thing in the arrangment then the electronica based around the guitars and chord progressions. The vocals were the final element added. Even that is merely semantics and doesnt negate the fact the music is from a metal standpoint. Considering I have been playing metal guitar since the late 80's or early 90's I believe in all fairness I have a much more firm understanding of what I am doing.

The other band name I mention is Conspiracy, the demo was death and despair under my real name "Mark". If you search Spellcraft from the United States in your database it will be there.

Are vocal styles relevant? Well yes actually they are based on your guidelines which are set to limit the metal scene, instead of embracing the many facets of it. Based on that if the vocals were done in a country voice on a bands demo they would be denied entry for lack of metal. I understand your need for metal to stay stagnant and remain the way it is in your eyes but that is very naive on your and the sites behalf. For example, you can debate the actual date that metal began, but a fairly agreed upon date is 1969. Metal is almost 25 years old and has undergone many facelifts within that time. What you fail to realize as a whole is that metal is not a simple cookie cutter formula that you may wish it to be, hence the overall silliness of the black metal elitist kids. Throughout the many tonal differences and stylistic difference in metal the underlying thread is internal to the musicians and fans alike. It is not a simple category that you can lump every band into.

So if you wish to further continue denying my existence on this site, even though I exist in other musical endeavors you are actually denying me on an internal belief and not any factual based reason. That is a rather ignorant way of handling things. I am quite positive you will stick to your decision to deny me because the human ego is a rather frail thing. It is hard to admit mistakes but I tell you without a doubt your "reasons" are a mistake.

The ball is in your court, you can either do the right thing and add my latest release to my list of releases or you can continue with your misguided opinions. At any rate, it really doesnt matter.

Being a member of the band, I would also welcome a second opinion. It's gothic doom metal, surely? The admin in question would be well advised to listen to a song like 'An Omen Of Sorrow'...yes, there are non-metal elements (keys, etc), but the metal elements are undeniable. If Edenfall are not worthy of this site, then the likes of Draconian and Tristania should be deleted too, in my humble opinion.

I as the artist am in the position to know what the music is and what its basis is. [...] Are vocal styles relevant? Well yes actually they are based on your guidelines [...]I understand your need for metal to stay stagnant and remain the way it is in your eyes [...]

you can debate the actual date that metal began, but a fairly agreed upon date is 1969. Metal is almost 25 years old [...] you are actually denying me on an internal belief and not any factual based reason. That is a rather ignorant way of handling things. I am quite positive you will stick to your decision to deny me because the human ego is a rather frail thing. It is hard to admit mistakes but I tell you without a doubt your "reasons" are a mistake.

The entire post is comedy gold, but these snippets are just too precious... I think I have a new sig.

_________________

Markeri, in 2013 wrote:

you can debate the actual date that metal began, but a fairly agreed upon date is 1969. Metal is almost 25 years old

Extreme_violence wrote:

Why Iron maiden is there? It's very far to be metal than a lot of some metal band.

Sorry, I don't frequent this site enough to know what 'arguments' are likely to work! I thought it was a fairly logical point, but never mind. Anyway, regardless of what it sounds like, the music should speak for itself, someone have a listen!

So sorry I hit the wrong number pad but you are right it is comedy gold as is your pathetic responses,,, so in true comedy here is a big fuck you to you and yours. hahaha. I didnt realized you were God and the be all end all of the world... Just tell me when you want your balls licked.

Last edited by Markeri on Thu Mar 21, 2013 6:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

So far every reason for rejection you have added was based on your personal perception of what you heard when you listened to the music.

And what else should I work with here, in my position as a staff member? Email the High Council of Metalheads for advice? Call Tony Iommi? Start a poll over at Allmusic? I asked another mod about his opinion too and he agreed, btw. EDIT: Make that two mods.

Quote:

I as the artist am in the position to know what the music is and what its basis is.

And unlike my assessment that is an objective fact we have to accept as opposed to personal perception? I never claimed the band was definitely, absolutely, in every possible world for every possible sentient being not metal. Obviously that interpretation isn't worth discussing and neither I nor the site ever made such a ludicrous claim. Such is music. We do however reserve the right to reject bands we -representing this entity called Metal Archives- do not consider to be metal. As mentioned before, you're free to believe what you want, as the creator of the music or otherwise, but if you want to be listed here it obviously falls to the owners/the owners-selected staff to judge the music. Apparently this is a concept some people never quite seem to grasp. That we're not claiming to be a be-all-end-all authority on the subject dictating what people may or may not call metal. It's okay not being listed here. Really!

Quote:

For example you state that it sounds like the music was based around electronica and the vocal melodies. As the writer of the music I can tell you with 100% certainty that the guitar was the first thing in the arrangment then the electronica based around the guitars and chord progressions. The vocals were the final element added. Even that is merely semantics and doesnt negate the fact the music is from a metal standpoint. Considering I have been playing metal guitar since the late 80's or early 90's I believe in all fairness I have a much more firm understanding of what I am doing.

Well, still, that's what the end product sounded like to me. Electronic with guitars and a focus on melodic vocals. The deciding matter here is that I couldn't hear a basis in metal riffs. And said riffs are what the site defines as the foundation of its definition for metal.

Quote:

Are vocal styles relevant? Well yes actually they are based on your guidelines which are set to limit the metal scene, instead of embracing the many facets of it.

What...

Quote:

Based on that if the vocals were done in a country voice on a bands demo they would be denied entry for lack of metal.

...are...

Quote:

I understand your need for metal to stay stagnant and remain the way it is in your eyes but that is very naive on your and the sites behalf. For example, you can debate the actual date that metal began, but a fairly agreed upon date is 1969. Metal is almost 25 years old and has undergone many facelifts within that time.

...you...

Quote:

What you fail to realize as a whole is that metal is not a simple cookie cutter formula that you may wish it to be, hence the overall silliness of the black metal elitist kids.

...talking...

Quote:

Throughout the many tonal differences and stylistic difference in metal the underlying thread is internal to the musicians and fans alike. It is not a simple category that you can lump every band into.

...about? For starters, that's quite a lot of (wrong) assumptions to make on our behalf. Not to mention one interesting piece of arithmetic.

Quote:

So if you wish to further continue denying my existence on this site, even though I exist in other musical endeavors you are actually denying me on an internal belief and not any factual based reason. That is a rather ignorant way of handling things. I am quite positive you will stick to your decision to deny me because the human ego is a rather frail thing. It is hard to admit mistakes but I tell you without a doubt your "reasons" are a mistake.

...what? Nobody's denying anyone because of some grudge, even though you seem to be hellbent on making that a tempting option. The Collective was judged and found not metal enough for the site's definitions. Your other two bands were judged in the same way, with another outcome. That's all there is to it.

Quote:

At any rate, it really doesnt matter.

So why didn't you respect our decision instead of downright attacking us and making all kinds of made-up accusations?

https://soundcloud.com/edenfall-music - Thanks, it would be great to get a second opinion.

Being a member of the band, I would also welcome a second opinion. It's gothic doom metal, surely? The admin in question would be well advised to listen to a song like 'An Omen Of Sorrow'...yes, there are non-metal elements (keys, etc), but the metal elements are undeniable. If Edenfall are not worthy of this site, then the likes of Draconian and Tristania should be deleted too, in my humble opinion.

Unless those two tracks are completely different from the rest of the album, I agree, this is metal. I'm not sure what the rejecting mod listened to, but probably the samples on CD Baby, which seem to give a wrong impression. Is there any way of listening to the album in its entirety?

Unless those two tracks are completely different from the rest of the album, I agree, this is metal. I'm not sure what the rejecting mod listened to, but probably the samples on CD Baby, which seem to give a wrong impression. Is there any way of listening to the album in its entirety?

Cheers.

Unfortunately I can't offer a way of listening to the whole album, but the two tracks on the Soundcloud link are fairly representative. There is one track which has more of a ballad feel to it, but the rest is equally metal to the two tracks.

Hi,Since you guys accept some non-metal bands that you feel are still part of the scene, couldn't Praying Mantis be accepted based on the fact that they were part of the NWOBHM movement, even though they're probably not metal by today's standards?

Oh, my mistake then...I know people ask about them frequently, I too have done it before. I was just trying a different approach. Not trying to be annoying, it's just that it feels weird to have bands like Killswitch Engage in the site but not them.

So whoever the "ruling elite" of MA is seems to have more of an issue with accepting bands with any trace of djent, even with ">50% metal influence", than fucking Trivium LOL. Forgot why I never use MA or refer to anyone IRL anymore, thanks for reminding me.

I know people ask about them frequently, I too have done it before. I was just trying a different approach. Not trying to be annoying, it's just that it feels weird to have bands like Killswitch Engage in the site but not them.

First two albums of Killswitch Engage have a Gothenburg melo-death oriented sound with some groove and thrash riffs thrown in. Probably enough to include them on MA I suppose.

_________________

gomorro wrote:

Infact I use to have a relly hot friend from there but unfurtunetly the last party we have I was really wasted and grab her ass and it cause a huge problem. Her dad (that is a marine) wants to ripp my nuts... thinks are not the same...

Of course you have 100k+ daily users, I'm assuming THAT'S WHY YOU ACCEPTED TRIVIUM lol. It's kinda pathetic, and don't try to deny that Trivium and all the other shit mallcore is in the archives to increase website traffic. MA has become everything I was ashamed of as a fan of metal. Enjoy the inclusive elitist circle-jerk guys.

Of course you have 100k+ daily users, I'm assuming THAT'S WHY YOU ACCEPTED TRIVIUM lol. It's kinda pathetic, and don't try to deny that Trivium and all the other shit mallcore is in the archives to increase website traffic. MA has become everything I was ashamed of as a fan of metal. Enjoy the inclusive elitist circle-jerk guys.

Of course you have 100k+ daily users, I'm assuming THAT'S WHY YOU ACCEPTED TRIVIUM lol. It's kinda pathetic, and don't try to deny that Trivium and all the other shit mallcore is in the archives to increase website traffic. MA has become everything I was ashamed of as a fan of metal.

Holy shit you're as stupid as Markeri, except in reverse. Amazing.

Quote:

Enjoy the inclusive elitist circle-jerk guys.

Inclusive... elitist. Okay....

_________________

Markeri, in 2013 wrote:

you can debate the actual date that metal began, but a fairly agreed upon date is 1969. Metal is almost 25 years old

Extreme_violence wrote:

Why Iron maiden is there? It's very far to be metal than a lot of some metal band.

Of course you have 100k+ daily users, I'm assuming THAT'S WHY YOU ACCEPTED TRIVIUM lol. It's kinda pathetic, and don't try to deny that Trivium and all the other shit mallcore is in the archives to increase website traffic. MA has become everything I was ashamed of as a fan of metal. Enjoy the inclusive elitist circle-jerk guys.

Whoa, you're late, man. Trivium is sooo 2005. Nobody cares about them anymore. Nah, we have to keep hopping on every new trend if we want to keep our traffic! Today, the kids are all after the hot modern sound of... *looks at the top visited bands* um, Darkthrone, Burzum, and Iron Maiden! You can understand why we compromise our integrity by keeping that trendy shit on the site. Sorry about your super underground djent, that just doesn't interest the kids today.